What Drives Support for Obama Despite Concerns Over His Record?

[Trakar]

Abilities Hil and Bam have and they are – against media pigeonholing and focus on unimportant diversions – exchanging ideas they have for resolving and dealing with many of the types of issues bedeviling the U.S.

As to skin color and placement of sex organs, common sense and a few studies show that perspectives and views are probably shaped by those differences. Below are some readings I believe support that viewpoint.

Interesting take, unfortunately, if that is your criteria then "Hil and Bam" aren't your best choices as their votes in the senate and proposals on their websites (the few hard points they can be nailed down on anyway) are entirely reflective of the same "fair-skinned male" views we've been treated to over the last 8 years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/21/hillary-defends-iran-vote_n_69255.html"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5251.html"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3297741&page=1"

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/"

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2007/10/26/4"

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/06/whats_new_10.html"

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/"

And these are just the result a a very cursory 5 minute search.

 

[Smurf]

Hillary is a tool. She's a career politician backed by pharmaceutical and credit companies and not a lot more. She's not there for a reason, she's there for a job.

The problem with Obama is if he did get elected he'd probably get shot. And then what? Edwards?

 

[Amp1]

Yeah, bummer. If Edwards, has repented; yeah, why not?

 

[Amp1]

Trakar

Hillary Defends Iran Vote In Iowa

I could defend any politicians vote for Iraq after the war started for obvious reasons; one being no one politician would or could go against the appearance of not supporting our troops and not be character assinated, Pre-war in the rush (to war) and haste (inaccurate and mis-leading (fabricated(?)) intelligence(?), The willingness to smear anyone that decried the pending invasion unpatriotic- sure few politicians had the courage to stand up then and talk reason to the herd, and yes I use that term because people were behaving like sheep to be goaded and led to some pre-determined outcome, few was the representative or senator who would question that quasi evidence, or raise alerts to examine the shaky logic behind it. Who was in that few? 1

Hillary defends lobbyists

Strange enough as it seems there are actually lobbyists that represent working and middle class Americans. That in contrast to the types of lobbyists – those representing conglomerates – its implied she’s in cahoots with, not saying she isn’t I don’t know yet, but from the article’s quotes of her words… she isn’t defending corporate lobbyists. 2

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton was booed this morning by some attendees at the liberal Take Back America conference for blaming failure in Iraq on the Iraqi government.

It is incumbent on them to develop and adapt to their current circumstances enough to cooperate and take charge of their future even though Cheney/Bush started it, the people of Iraq should not rely on that admin to help them to much… they’re to busy trying to plunder the Iraqi peoples’ resources. And I do disagree in that the largest portion of the blame should be placed again with the people who started it for no good reason. 3

Obama defends votes in favor of Iraq funding

See 1 above, the same reasoning applies in addition, the troops were insufficiently equipped to begin with - (I wonder if the money for the equipment got swallowed up by some greedy corp. that cared more about major stockholders than about our soldiers, sea(wo)men and air(wo)men)- for gosh sakes, our troops had to improvise their own armor geezzz! And yes, I know what I’m implying to me it is obvious our people were so ill prepared.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2852426&page=1


http://robschumacher.blogspot.com/2005/10/iraq-war-money-hole.html (excerpt-The GAO report of July 2004 found that in the first nine months of the occupation, KBR was allowed a free hand in Iraq: a free hand, for example, to bill the Pentagon without worrying about spending limits or management oversight or paperwork. Millions of dollars’ worth of new equipment disappeared. KBR charged $73 million for motor caravans to house the 101st Airborne Division, twice as much as the army said it would cost to build barracks itself; KBR charged $88 million for three million meals for US troops that were never served. The GAO calculated that the army could have saved $31 million a year simply by doing business directly with the catering firms that KBR hired. In June 2004, the GAO continued, ‘by eliminating the use of LOGCAP and making the LOGCAP subcontractor the prime contractor, the command reduced meal costs by 43 per cent without a loss of service or quality.’)

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/10669

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/24/AR2007082402307.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9784.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL

And these are just the result a a very cursory 5 minute search.

same thing more than this in less than five.

Truthfully, Dennis Kucinich, if he had a chance may have been my choice. ;-}

 

[Trakar]

Trakar
Truthfully, Dennis Kucinich, if he had a chance may have been my choice. ;-}

Seriously, if he had ever had a legitimate chance, it would have involved fundamental changes to so many of his positions that he would have been little different from any of the current front-runners. There is no candidate running who embodies all of the things I believe need to be done and don't have any of the negatives that I feel should disqualify a candidate for president. I like Edwards for his domestic plans and agenda, I like Richardson for his foriegn policy/diplomacy experience, too bad there is no candidate that embodies those qualities without all the negatives of the two front-runners.

 

[Amp1]

After taking a quick look here - http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm - I don’t think I would want Kucinich to change very much. He is the candidate that is most in tune with 95% of the population of U. S. citizens (if they want a strong United States that takes care of its people… and I’m not saying the other 5% don’t but they are the ones who can make corporations really stop polluting that’s just for starters), the other 5% I can see why they don’t want him.

 

[BobG]

Trakar

I could defend any politicians vote for Iraq after the war started for obvious reasons; one being no one politician would or could go against the appearance of not supporting our troops and not be character assinated, Pre-war in the rush (to war) and haste (inaccurate and mis-leading (fabricated(?)) intelligence(?), The willingness to smear anyone that decried the pending invasion unpatriotic- sure few politicians had the courage to stand up then and talk reason to the herd, and yes I use that term because people were behaving like sheep to be goaded and led to some pre-determined outcome, few was the representative or senator who would question that quasi evidence, or raise alerts to examine the shaky logic behind it. Who was in that few? 1

I'd go back and take a look at the public sentiment when the debate over authorization to invade Iraq was taken. Most of the public (around 70%) were only willing to invade Iraq as part of a UN joint operation.

It wasn't the issue that scared them. It was George Bush.

If he invaded without their individual vote and the invasion turned out the way Gulf I did, they'd be crucified. Republicans were up against the additional hazard of party discipline if they opposed a Republican President.

So, yes, you're partly right. They could have sold a "No" vote to the public. They also would have faced the wrath of Bush (including the "smearing", etc).

A subtle difference, perhaps, but it was their courage to go up against Bush in a public arena that was the issue, not the courage to buck public opinion about the invasion.

 

[Trakar]

I'd go back and take a look at the public sentiment when the debate over authorization to invade Iraq was taken. Most of the public (around 70%) were only willing to invade Iraq as part of a UN joint operation.

It wasn't the issue that scared them. It was George Bush.

If he invaded without their individual vote and the invasion turned out the way Gulf I did, they'd be crucified. Republicans were up against the additional hazard of party discipline if they opposed a Republican President.

So, yes, you're partly right. They could have sold a "No" vote to the public. They also would have faced the wrath of Bush (including the "smearing", etc).

A subtle difference, perhaps, but it was their courage to go up against Bush in a public arena that was the issue, not the courage to buck public opinion about the invasion.

Fully agreed, and that is the primary issue with most of the other voting problems I have with these candidates, it isn't that voting differently would have cost them public support, much the opposite according to most of the polls I've seen. Its that it would have required them to open themselves to the same attacks that will come regardless of how they have voted, since they are Democrats. Problem is now, instead of being principled Democrats who stood up for the people they supposedly represent (the majority of Americans), they'll still be painted as weak and they can't argue as stridently against these policies because they voted to approve them! That they support the troops, but not the war, is too nuanced and too long to make a good sound-byte. Better to be damned for doing the right thing, than to give the appearance of flip-flopping indecision by opposing the administration's policies while voting to approve them.

 

[Amp1]

Originally Posted by BobG
I'd go back and take a look at the public sentiment when the debate over authorization to invade Iraq was taken. Most of the public (around 70%) were only willing to invade Iraq as part of a UN joint operation.

It wasn't the issue that scared them. It was George Bush.

If he invaded without their individual vote and the invasion turned out the way Gulf I did, they'd be crucified. Republicans were up against the additional hazard of party discipline if they opposed a Republican President.

So, yes, you're partly right. They could have sold a "No" vote to the public. They also would have faced the wrath of Bush (including the "smearing", etc).

A subtle difference, perhaps, but it was their courage to go up against Bush in a public arena that was the issue, not the courage to buck public opinion about the invasion.

I see and agree. (How do you do those nice tricks like that >> and stuff?)

 

[Trakar]

So, I'm just wondering, 2 years later, any thoughts, changes of opinion, or of since confirmed biases (either way) to report among any of those who participated or read this original thread?

 

[Supercritical]

I think this is relevant, and will probably be discussed elsewhere on this forum:

The US believes the official intelligence assessment of Iran's nuclear programme is wrong and Tehran is working on the design of a nuclear weapon, it was reported today.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/03/us-intelligence-iran-nuclear-weapons

The gruesome irony of this will not be lost on those in this forum, for now Obama is:

A. Dismissing intelligence that says Iraq (whoops, I mean Iran) suspended it's WMD program

B. Going further than Bush did in claims about Iran's weapons ambitions following the 2007 NIE

and C. Probably ruffling the feathers of anti-war groups (even if it's just a little)

There are those who will backpedal like crazy about this (or try to move the goalposts). Those people should be advised that you can't shift gears on a bicycle while you're backpedaling, and that public debate really isn't much different.

That doesn't concern me, though, because shouldn't one be content if a public figure had eventually come to agree with one's point of view? For the record, I do have faith in Obama and his administration, knowing full well that intelligence can change when new sources become available.

I just absolutely could not go without pointing out the irony though!

 

[Nebula815]

On the flip side of the coin, one could say that being afraid to call out the true WMD threats when one sees them for fear of being wrong, because of Iraq, is what could lead the world to really being threatened with a true WMD threat.

 

[Jamin2112]

Several things:

(1) He is Black. A little bit ago, there was an Opinion article in the Washington Examiner called The black-white divide in Obama's popularity ( http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/black-white-divide-in-obama-popularity-43923897.html" ).

Asked whether their opinion of the president is favorable or unfavorable, 49 percent of whites in the Times poll say they have a favorable opinion of Obama. Among blacks the number is 80 percent. Twenty-one percent of whites say their view of the president is unfavorable, while the number of blacks with unfavorable opinions of Obama is too small to measure.

(2) He got an A in speech class, I'm assuming. There have been several incidences of his TelePrompTer failing him; that's when he fumbles with his words and sounds like a moron.

(3) He has no real beliefs or values; and if he does, nobody knows what they are. He equivocates on every issues to try and please everyone.

Consider his Nobel Peace Prize speech. He was all over the place!

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

A foreign policy liberal?

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

He mentions the Persian Gulf War and Afghanistan, but not Iraq, because that would touch on a contentious issue.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.




A realist, or what exactly?

 

[OmCheeto]

I think this is relevant, and will probably be discussed elsewhere on this forum:source:

The US believes the official intelligence assessment of Iran's nuclear programme is wrong and Tehran is working on the design of a nuclear weapon, it was reported today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/03/us-intelligence-iran-nuclear-weapons

The gruesome irony of this will not be lost on those in this forum...

I don't see the irony. The intelligence that said Iran had stopped their nuclear weapons program was 3 years old. New intelligence says otherwise.

...Mr Obama's advisers say they believe the work on weapons design is continuing on a smaller scale – the same assessment reached by Britain, France, Germany and Israel...

I still support Obama because he: Ordered the closing of the Gitmo detention facility, abolished torture, lifted the restrictions on stem cell research, expanded children's health insurance, signed equal pay law, diminished the role of lobbyists in the White House, lifted travel and remittance restrictions for Cuba, didn't halt the assault on the goon squads in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, reversed US policy on international family planning aide, Cash for Clunkers!, authorized the neutralization of Somali pirates, gave a great Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, authorized state mandated automotive emission standards, end of the war on medical marijuana, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

 

[Trakar]

I don't see the irony. The intelligence that said Iran had stopped their nuclear weapons program was 3 years old. New intelligence says otherwise.



I still support Obama because he:
Ordered the closing of the Gitmo detention facility,
abolished torture, lifted the restrictions on stem cell research,
expanded children's health insurance,
signed equal pay law,
diminished the role of lobbyists in the White House,
lifted travel and remittance restrictions for Cuba,
didn't halt the assault on the goon squads in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq,
reversed US policy on international family planning aide,
Cash for Clunkers!,
authorized the neutralization of Somali pirates,
gave a great Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech,
authorized state mandated automotive emission standards,
end of the war on medical marijuana,

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Agreed, he has been great on the et cetera,
...on the rest,
I see less supportive evidence and more contentious positions in evidence.

Better than Bush, definitely! But Bush wasn't running, and I can't imagine that any of the candidates running in either party would have been as bad or worse than Bush.

 

[russ_watters]

I still support Obama because he: Ordered the closing of the Gitmo detention facility...

Could you explain why you support him because of this? To me, this appears to be a pretty major policy and strategy blunder (except insofar as the main strategy behind it was getting elected - it's just that now he has to deal with the campaign promise). His position is wrong on several levels:

1. You can't just close the facility. There are people there and you have to do something with them. When he gave his one-liner soundbytes on the issue during the campaign, he never explained what would be done with them and so he got people to support him on the issue without ever thinking about it...which is what a good public speaker does. So what can really be done with them...?:

1a. Release them to their home countries. Well, no, you can't. Many of the countries where these guys game from don't want them back, so some simply can't be released back to their home countries. And others who have been released back to their home countries have rejoined the terrorist ranks they came from. So that doesn't work.

1b. Release them to the US. Um, no.

1c. Transfer them to a civilian jail in Chicago. Funny he didn't mention this option during the campaign, isn't it...? The only argument I've heard in favor of this is that it eliminates the symbol of Gitmo. So what? Is that really all this issue is about? A symbol? As if that really means the terrorists in Afghanistan are going to say 'oh, ok, 'Gitmo is closed - let's lay down our weapons and make peace.' C'mon. Naive platitude is all that is. Let's be honest: the only reason he is transferring them to Chicago is so he can claim he fulfilled his campaign promise. There is no real value to doing it (and, of course, it costs money). And it doesn't really solve the problem of what to do with them anyway, does it? It isn't a permanent solution. So...

1c1: Once they get to Chicago, 1a and 1b haven't gotten any more viable. What else can we do? How 'bout trying them in civilian court? Is that a can of worms we really want opened? For a foreign fighter in Afghanistan to be charged (with what?) in a civilian court under US civilian court rules? It just wouldn't work for most of them. And that's in addition to the fact that trying them in civilian court puts the lives of our soldiers in danger because they have to adjust their rules of engagement to treat enemy soldiers like civilian criminals in some cases.

...and more to the point: now that the public really knows how the issue works instead of just hearing the one-liner soundbyte that he's going to close the prison, public opinion has turned against him on it. The public is now starting to realize that they got suckered by a flashy smile and a "hope"ful speech.

...and the same goes for the laughable unemployment prediction and action. Remember 8%? He'd appreciate it if you would forget...

diminished the role of lobbyists in the White House

Has he? Immediately after making his declaration of that he started making exceptions to it. Without seeing some statistics, I'm not inclined to believe he's lived up to this. Also, the way you worded it, a 1% drop would be counted as a win - but considering how hard he campaigned on this point, I'd consider it a big loss since what he actually initially said was "lobbyists won't find a job in my White House". So while you may consider a small drop to be a good start, his promise was laughably silly when he made it and he never really attempted to keep it anyway. And you're giving him a win for that?

gave a great Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

I actually laughed out loud when I saw this. While I completely agree that being a good speech maker is one of his principal accomplishments, it is still funny to see it actually listed as such.

Being a too good a speech maker is one of the things I've never liked about him.

 

[mheslep]

I think this is relevant, and will probably be discussed elsewhere on this forum:source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/03/us-intelligence-iran-nuclear-weapons

The gruesome irony of this will not be lost on those in this forum, for now Obama is:

A. Dismissing intelligence that says Iraq (whoops, I mean Iran) suspended it's WMD program...

This article does not say that. It makes clear, that now, in the year 2010 intelligence has been received that changes the intelligence estimate of the year 2007:

"After reviewing new documents that have leaked out of Iran and debriefing defectors lured to the west, Mr Obama's advisers say they believe the work on weapons design is continuing on a smaller scale – the same assessment reached by Britain, France, Germany and Israel," the New York Times reported.

 

[Supercritical]

Regarding Iran and its nuclear program, strong allegations have been made that Iran started working on a neutron initiator (a nuke's trigger according to what I've read) in 2007. Source The 2007 NIE that declared Iran's program "halted" was published in November 2007. Again, we don't need a repeat of Iraq: Iran is clearly far from a bomb, and it's irresponsible to state Tehran is hell-bent on acquiring any given the current open-source info. But the important point is that it is not "halted."

I suppose a case can be made that good, disciplined intelligence takes months or even years to crystallize, resulting in a natural lag-time. The matter remains, however, that the 2007 NIE demolished the remaining scraps of credibility the Bush administration had at the time, compromising Bush's mandate to confront Tehran. This means that precious time has been lost (2 years) and that the United States and its allies have been shown to lack continuity of purpose. We now know Iran has capitalized on the hesitation.

I think it also bears noting that NIE's on both sides of the issue (supporting and challenging the notion of active programs) have been discredited. Think about what that does to the reputation of the US intelligence community. Critics can now propose that the US can't figure it out one way or the other!

 

[OmCheeto]

I still support Obama because he: Ordered the closing of the Gitmo detention facility

Could you explain why you support him because of this?

Sure. Gitmo represented to me a form of cowardice on the part of America. So afraid of retaliation were we, that we wouldn't even keep detainee's on our own soil for fear of attack. It was kind of a "not in my backyard" mentality.

Bringing the bad boys home sends a message:

We are not afraid.

Sorry to provide such a simple answer to what you appear to believe a very complex issue, but that's just the way I see things sometimes.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure. Gitmo represented to me a form of cowardice on the part of America. So afraid of retaliation were we, that we wouldn't even keep detainee's on our own soil for fear of attack. It was kind of a "not in my backyard" mentality.

Wow, I've honestly never heard that before - and in any case, that reason just plain isn't correct: they are in Guantanamo Bay primarily for legal reasons, not because of some fear (of what you think the fear is, I'm not clear)*. But it's related to the symbolism argument and to me it isn't really worth much (and more to the point, wouldn't have been the same campaign issue). Ie, if we had put them in a special prison in Leavenworth from the start, this wouldn't be an issue to you? I really suspect that to most people on that side it still would be an issue, just with a different name. Certainly, the detainees would still exist, so some issue still would.

Sorry to provide such a simple answer to what you appear to believe a very complex issue, but that's just the way I see things sometimes.

That's ok - you just see this issue very differently from how most people do, I think. His dropping approval rating on this issue reflects that.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp

After the Justice Department advised that the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp could be considered outside US legal jurisdiction, prisoners captured in Afghanistan were moved there beginning in early 2002.

FYI, here's a gallup poll on the subject, with discussion of the stark change in public opinion on it following the Congressional vote against Obama on the subject, which probably made the idea of the prisoners being transferred to the US 'more real' to people.

By a better than 2-to-1 margin, Americans are opposed to closing the Guantanamo Bay prison that houses terror suspects and moving some of those prisoners to the United States. Americans express even more widespread opposition to the idea of moving the prisoners to prisons in their own states if Guantanamo is closed.

...These results are based on a May 29-31 USA Today/Gallup poll. Early in his administration, President Obama announced that he would close the controversial prison within a year. However, his policy received a bit of a rebuke last month when the U.S. Senate rejected funding for the closure until the president outlines a plan for what to do with the terror suspects still being held there. Even some prominent Democratic senators rejected the idea of moving Guantanamo detainees to U.S. prisons.

...Polling by other firms has found greater support for closing Guantanamo, using different question wordings. Most of these differ from the Gallup question in that they associate the policy with President Obama and do not mention what would be done with the terror suspects who are currently housed at Guantanamo.

...The only other recent poll that addresses the handling of the prisoners is an April 22-26 CBS News/New York Times poll, which found 47% saying the U.S. should "continue to operate the prison" and 44% saying it should "close the prison and transfer the prisoners somewhere else."

That poll was conducted before the Senate vote. Much of the discussion after that vote concerned the possibility that some of the prisoners would be sent to U.S. prisons. Thus, it is possible the poll's results would differ if asked today because it may now be clearer to Americans that transferring prisoners "somewhere else" might include the United States.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/119393/Americans-Oppose-Closing-Gitmo-Moving-Prisoners.aspx

Yes, you are right that I feel strongly about this issue. The reason for that is two-fold. First, the wider issue of the war on terror is important to me and it doesn't appear to me that people are taking the issue seriously. Your opinion is an example of this. Second, and related, is what Gallup says about Obamamania: attach a position to Obama and people will support it without putting thought into it. Besides not taking the issue itself seriously, it is dangerous for people to support a President without thought. And that goes back to what you said before about his public speaking skills (and why that is a turn-off to me)...

 

[vertices]

1b. Release them to the US. Um, no.

Um. Why not? You try people and find them innocent or guilty. You release the innocent (unless ofcourse you don't believe in the American constitution).

If I did something wrong, and I now realize it was wrong, it's my - not anyone else's- responsiblity to make it right.

 

[OmCheeto]

Wow, I've honestly never heard that before - and in any case, that reason just plain isn't correct: they are in Guantanamo Bay primarily for legal reasons, not because of some fear (of what you think the fear is, I'm not clear)*. But it's related to the symbolism argument and to me it isn't really worth much (and more to the point, wouldn't have been the same campaign issue).

I'm sorry, but your post says it in black and white:

Americans express even more widespread opposition to the idea of moving the prisoners to prisons in their own states if Guantanamo is closed.

I understand the political point of view of the states not wanting the prisoners. If they don't put up a fight to keep them out, and the goon squads show up and blow up the Sears tower because the detainee's are in the Cook County jail, then it will be someones fault.

The Senates opposition to Obama's plan also, in my mind, makes the one year promise moot. But I've never been one to dwell on exactness in politics.

On May 20, 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90-6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

And you are correct about the legality of the choice of Gitmo.

asserted that detainees were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions

But that just stinks of hypocrisy. Seems to me that this is, ironically, why we've had an embargo on Cuba for the last 50 some odd years.

Yup

the embargo was codified into law in 1992 with the stated purpose of maintaining sanctions on the Castro regime so long as it continues to refuse to move toward "democratization and greater respect for human rights

Ah ha! Another reason I'm supporting Obama. He's does seem to get things done:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-closure-dentention-facilities-guantanamo-bay-naval-base"
December 15, 2009

By the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40, 115 Stat. 224), and in order to facilitate the closure of detention facilities at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, I hereby direct that the following actions be taken as expeditiously as possible with respect to the facility known as the Thomson Correctional Center (TCC) in Thomson, Illinois:

etcetera, etcetera, etcetera

BARACK OBAMA​

 

[Skyhunter]

1a. Release them to their home countries. Well, no, you can't. Many of the countries where these guys game from don't want them back, so some simply can't be released back to their home countries. And others who have been released back to their home countries have rejoined the terrorist ranks they came from. So that doesn't work.

About 14%, 1 in 7, according to an unreleased Pentagon report from last January. Is it justice to incarcerate the other 6? And since these detainees were released during the Bush administration it is hardly fair to use Bush's failures to paint Obama.

1b. Release them to the US. Um, no.

No argument here.

1c. Transfer them to a civilian jail in Chicago. Funny he didn't mention this option during the campaign, isn't it...? The only argument I've heard in favor of this is that it eliminates the symbol of Gitmo. So what? Is that really all this issue is about? A symbol? As if that really means the terrorists in Afghanistan are going to say 'oh, ok, 'Gitmo is closed - let's lay down our weapons and make peace.' C'mon. Naive platitude is all that is. Let's be honest: the only reason he is transferring them to Chicago is so he can claim he fulfilled his campaign promise. There is no real value to doing it (and, of course, it costs money). And it doesn't really solve the problem of what to do with them anyway, does it? It isn't a permanent solution. So...

It is more about showing the rest of the world that America is a nation ruled by law, not fear. Are we so afraid of a tactic that we will abandon are values?

1c1: Once they get to Chicago, 1a and 1b haven't gotten any more viable. What else can we do? How 'bout trying them in civilian court? Is that a can of worms we really want opened? For a foreign fighter in Afghanistan to be charged (with what?) in a civilian court under US civilian court rules? It just wouldn't work for most of them. And that's in addition to the fact that trying them in civilian court puts the lives of our soldiers in danger because they have to adjust their rules of engagement to treat enemy soldiers like civilian criminals in some cases.

This doesn't follow for me.

Can you offer an example where rules of engagement are rewritten because the guy shooting at you might be classified a civilian?

On the battlefield you have combatants and noncombatants. I don't see how prisoner classification after the battle should have any bearing on rules of engagement.

...and more to the point: now that the public really knows how the issue works instead of just hearing the one-liner soundbyte that he's going to close the prison, public opinion has turned against him on it. The public is now starting to realize that they got suckered by a flashy smile and a "hope"ful speech.

This is just speculation and opinion. And American policy is not set by the poll numbers... it is made by corporations.

...and the same goes for the laughable unemployment prediction and action. Remember 8%? He'd appreciate it if you would forget...

Most economists agreed that the stimulus was too small. Banks took the 700 billion from Bush and purchased the treasury bonds that were printed to get the 700 billion to begin with. So yes, I consider what Obama has done for the economy to be quite positive. He is not an economist, so I never took his prediction that seriously to begin with.

Has he? Immediately after making his declaration of that he started making exceptions to it. Without seeing some statistics, I'm not inclined to believe he's lived up to this. Also, the way you worded it, a 1% drop would be counted as a win - but considering how hard he campaigned on this point, I'd consider it a big loss since what he actually initially said was "lobbyists won't find a job in my White House". So while you may consider a small drop to be a good start, his promise was laughably silly when he made it and he never really attempted to keep it anyway. And you're giving him a win for that?

You still need to fill the jobs with qualified people. Obama has gone a long way toward closing the door between lobbyists and government. The rules are much stricter, although he has provided waivers for many. I would call it progress, not a win, but a good step in the right direction.

I actually laughed out loud when I saw this. While I completely agree that being a good speech maker is one of his principal accomplishments, it is still funny to see it actually listed as such.

Being a too good a speech maker is one of the things I've never liked about him.

I thought that it was his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention that led you to support Obama in the first place.

 

[mheslep]

Ah ha! Another reason I'm supporting Obama. He's does seem to get things done:

On the first read this statement baffled me. You must have some familiarity with the fact that the day after Obama took office he promised http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-On-National-Security-5-21-09/" .

By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That's why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year.

But after re-examination of Obama's statement contains its own explanation for the widespread lack of seriousness Russ mentioned is evident right there - the naivete expressed by Obama both in underestimating the need for Gitmo and in underestimating the complexity in the disposition of the existing prisoners. I posted at the time of this action that the Washington Post carried a story stating Obama "ended" the "war on terror' the same day by signing a piece of paper. With insane reporting like that it is understandable how people don't take the issue seriously.

 

[mheslep]

Jumping in on the economic issues -

...Most economists agreed that the stimulus was too small.

No, not most. Many economists didn't approve the original stimulus plan, at least not the spending aspects. Some hard core Keynesians want more stimulus now but they're not 'most' at this point.

Banks

and GM/Chrysler and AIG and Freddie/Fannie

took the 700 billion from Bush

and Obama/Geitner

 

[Trakar]

His position is wrong on several levels:

So you assert

1. You can't just close the facility. There are people there and you have to do something with them. When he gave his one-liner soundbytes on the issue during the campaign, he never explained what would be done with them and so he got people to support him on the issue without ever thinking about it...which is what a good public speaker does. So what can really be done with them...?:

1a. Release them to their home countries. Well, no, you can't. Many of the countries where these guys game from don't want them back, so some simply can't be released back to their home countries. And others who have been released back to their home countries have rejoined the terrorist ranks they came from. So that doesn't work.

actually you can do this, US policy and practice (as so amply demonstrated by the last administration) is not an issue of what other countries want or don't want. Drop them off with the authroities in the country of record, whether or not they want them.

"doesn't work?" what doesn't work? Who cares what they do when they are returned? obviously not the people who captured them and then held them in detention, or they would have operated under the principles of such a plan all along. If they had been concerned about them becoming, joining, or rejoining terrorist organizations after their release, they should have taken steps to make such an eventuality unlikely. If they didn't care, why should anyone else?

1b. Release them to the US. Um, no.

Why not? give them a temporary VISA and release them in the US. If they commit a crime, charge and arrest them, if they overstay their VISA, deport them.

1c. Transfer them to a civilian jail in Chicago.

Permanent detention without charges or trial, is no solution whether it is at the Guantanamo Naval base, or a former Chicago area prison.

1c1: Once they get to Chicago, 1a and 1b haven't gotten any more viable. What else can we do? How 'bout trying them in civilian court? Is that a can of worms we really want opened? For a foreign fighter in Afghanistan to be charged (with what?) in a civilian court under US civilian court rules? It just wouldn't work for most of them. And that's in addition to the fact that trying them in civilian court puts the lives of our soldiers in danger because they have to adjust their rules of engagement to treat enemy soldiers like civilian criminals in some cases.

should have been thought about before taking them prisoner and detaining them, regardless, yes, the best, and really only, non-hypocritical method of dealing with these people in accord with American traditions, values and law, is to charge them and try them in US courts, and if they are found not guilty of the crimes for which they are charged, then they must be released, if they are found guilty, they they face the appropriate sentence according to US system of justice.

After insisting upon using the US military to accomplish what should have been handled mostly by US Justice dept methods and agents, it is a little late to whine about the restrictions and dangers of making them perform tasks they are neither equipped nor trained to perform. Ultimately, however, if we are talking about actual battlefield engagements rather than the more ephemeral "global stage of battle in the War on Terror," military rules of engagement are not a problem or issue, so long as any prisoners taken, are appropriately processed once they have been removed from the battlefield situation.

...and more to the point: now that the public really knows how the issue works instead of just hearing the one-liner soundbyte that he's going to close the prison, public opinion has turned against him on it. The public is now starting to realize that they got suckered by a flashy smile and a "hope"ful speech.

Finding fault with the Obama administration, doesn not automatically lend credence or support for fringe right distortions of the issues.

Being a too good a speech maker is one of the things I've never liked about him.

Now that's a substantive and logical reason not to like someone.

 

[Trakar]

This article does not say that. It makes clear, that now, in the year 2010 intelligence has been received that changes the intelligence estimate of the year 2007:

Unfortunately, this "new" evidence, sounds suspicously similar to the Bush "intelligence" from the same types of disreputable sources with an agenda to involve US sanctions and force against their domestic political rivals (ala Curveball, and all the rest). Personally, I think we take the steps we can to forestall and prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon's state, but, in the long run we should start dealing with them as though such were already a fact. Dealing with Iran with a handful of crude nuclear weapons is certainly no more difficult than dealing with the Global Soviet empire with tens of thousands of state of the art nuclear weapons.

 

[Nebula815]

Why not? give them a temporary VISA and release them in the US. If they commit a crime, charge and arrest them, if they overstay their VISA, deport them.

You would want to just release terrorists into the civilian population of the U.S.?

Permanent detention without charges or trial, is no solution whether it is at the Guantanamo Naval base, or a former Chicago area prison.

Yes it is. It takes the terrorists off of the battlefield and thus keeps them from harming anyone. The United States is ready to end the War on Terror tomorrow if the terrorists want. They're the ones who keep trying to attack us.

should have been thought about before taking them prisoner and detaining them, regardless, yes, the best, and really only, non-hypocritical method of dealing with these people in accord with American traditions, values and law, is to charge them and try them in US courts, and if they are found not guilty of the crimes for which they are charged, then they must be released, if they are found guilty, they they face the appropriate sentence according to US system of justice.

Treating terrorism like a law enforcement issue is what got us to 9/11 in the first place. Non-state, illegal combatants are not to be treated as criminals. If civilian court trials are held, it can lead to the release of classified information on how they were captured (that is what happened with the WTC bombers) and also mean soldiers in the battlefield may have to treat certain terrorists as criminals.

 

[Nebula815]

But that just stinks of hypocrisy. Seems to me that this is, ironically, why we've had an embargo on Cuba for the last 50 some odd years.

No it does not. There is a HUGE difference between holding non-state, illegal enemy combatants who are not entitled to Geneva Convention rights or the U.S. Constitution in a place like Guantanomo Bay because they have decided to repeatedly attempt to commit acts of war against the nation, and a government literally just infringing on the rights and freedoms of its people in the name of power.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why support Obama? How could anyone be unhappy with Obama? The guy is amazing!

Officially banned the use of torture
Closing Gitmo
Reestablishing the credibility of the US around the globe [as did we by electing him!]
Helped to orchestrate a response to the in-process global economic meltdown
Recall that he was a superstar even among global leaders!. Amazing! Even they can see that Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime leader.
Reacted forcefully and quickly to intervene in the meltdown of the US economy.
Renewed long-term effort to ban all nuclear weapons

The Nuclear Doomsday Clock Still Ticks

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-doomsday-clock-still-ticks

Very likely to get 90% or more of what he wanted for health care reform. Presidents have been trying for seventy years. This alone is enough to mark his place in history as one of the greats.

Has shown steady resolve in his treatment of Afghanistan. Has used force where possible against terrorist camps in Pakistan, as he said that he would.

In spite of the fact that many economists argued that, in order to save them, Obama would have to nationalize the banks, he refused to do so; making it clear even to a lunatic that the claims that Obama is a "socialist" are lunatic. He had the perfect opportunity to seize power at the financial heart of the nation, but he didn't. Of course, even that isn't enough to change the minds of his detractors. Instead they cry about, essentially, how he saved the economy.

He angers the fringe on the right and the left because he is operating in the middle. He is smart, skilled, calm, and calculating. He is dedicated to the right side of the right issues and he stays focused. While he is human and will make mistakes, and he has, so far he is as close to being the ideal President as any I have seen in my lifetime. Thank God that great men appear in times of great crisis.